Cargando…
Analysis of lesion localisation at colonoscopy: outcomes from a multi-centre U.K. study
BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is currently the gold standard for detection of colorectal lesions, but may be limited in anatomically localising lesions. This audit aimed to determine the accuracy of colonoscopy lesion localisation, any subsequent changes in surgical management and any potentially influenc...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5487844/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27826775 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5313-z |
_version_ | 1783246530866577408 |
---|---|
author | Moug, Susan J. Fountas, Spyridon Johnstone, Mark S. Bryce, Adam S. Renwick, Andrew Chisholm, Lindsey J. McCarthy, Kathryn Hung, Amy Diament, Robert H. McGregor, John R. Khine, Myo Saldanha, James D. Khan, Khurram Mackay, Graham Leitch, E. Fiona McKee, Ruth F. Anderson, John H. Griffiths, Ben Horgan, Alan Lockwood, Sonia Bisset, Carly Molloy, Richard Vella, Mark |
author_facet | Moug, Susan J. Fountas, Spyridon Johnstone, Mark S. Bryce, Adam S. Renwick, Andrew Chisholm, Lindsey J. McCarthy, Kathryn Hung, Amy Diament, Robert H. McGregor, John R. Khine, Myo Saldanha, James D. Khan, Khurram Mackay, Graham Leitch, E. Fiona McKee, Ruth F. Anderson, John H. Griffiths, Ben Horgan, Alan Lockwood, Sonia Bisset, Carly Molloy, Richard Vella, Mark |
author_sort | Moug, Susan J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is currently the gold standard for detection of colorectal lesions, but may be limited in anatomically localising lesions. This audit aimed to determine the accuracy of colonoscopy lesion localisation, any subsequent changes in surgical management and any potentially influencing factors. METHODS: Patients undergoing colonoscopy prior to elective curative surgery for colorectal lesion/s were included from 8 registered U.K. sites (2012–2014). Three sets of data were recorded: patient factors (age, sex, BMI, screener vs. symptomatic, previous abdominal surgery); colonoscopy factors (caecal intubation, scope guide used, colonoscopist accreditation) and imaging modality. Lesion localisation was standardised with intra-operative location taken as the gold standard. Changes to surgical management were recorded. RESULTS: 364 cases were included; majority of lesions were colonic, solitary, malignant and in symptomatic referrals. 82% patients had their lesion/s correctly located at colonoscopy. Pre-operative CT visualised lesion/s in only 73% of cases with a reduction in screening patients (64 vs. 77%; p = 0.008). 5.2% incorrectly located cases at colonoscopy underwent altered surgical management, including conversion to open. Univariate analysis found colonoscopy accreditation, scope guide use, incomplete colonoscopy and previous abdominal surgery significantly influenced lesion localisation. On multi-variate analysis, caecal intubation and scope guide use remained significant (HR 0.35, 0.20–0.60 95% CI and 0.47; 0.25–0.88, respectively). CONCLUSION: Lesion localisation at colonoscopy is incorrect in 18% of cases leading to potentially significant surgical management alterations. As part of accreditation, colonoscopists need lesion localisation training and awareness of when inaccuracies can occur. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5487844 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-54878442017-07-03 Analysis of lesion localisation at colonoscopy: outcomes from a multi-centre U.K. study Moug, Susan J. Fountas, Spyridon Johnstone, Mark S. Bryce, Adam S. Renwick, Andrew Chisholm, Lindsey J. McCarthy, Kathryn Hung, Amy Diament, Robert H. McGregor, John R. Khine, Myo Saldanha, James D. Khan, Khurram Mackay, Graham Leitch, E. Fiona McKee, Ruth F. Anderson, John H. Griffiths, Ben Horgan, Alan Lockwood, Sonia Bisset, Carly Molloy, Richard Vella, Mark Surg Endosc Article BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is currently the gold standard for detection of colorectal lesions, but may be limited in anatomically localising lesions. This audit aimed to determine the accuracy of colonoscopy lesion localisation, any subsequent changes in surgical management and any potentially influencing factors. METHODS: Patients undergoing colonoscopy prior to elective curative surgery for colorectal lesion/s were included from 8 registered U.K. sites (2012–2014). Three sets of data were recorded: patient factors (age, sex, BMI, screener vs. symptomatic, previous abdominal surgery); colonoscopy factors (caecal intubation, scope guide used, colonoscopist accreditation) and imaging modality. Lesion localisation was standardised with intra-operative location taken as the gold standard. Changes to surgical management were recorded. RESULTS: 364 cases were included; majority of lesions were colonic, solitary, malignant and in symptomatic referrals. 82% patients had their lesion/s correctly located at colonoscopy. Pre-operative CT visualised lesion/s in only 73% of cases with a reduction in screening patients (64 vs. 77%; p = 0.008). 5.2% incorrectly located cases at colonoscopy underwent altered surgical management, including conversion to open. Univariate analysis found colonoscopy accreditation, scope guide use, incomplete colonoscopy and previous abdominal surgery significantly influenced lesion localisation. On multi-variate analysis, caecal intubation and scope guide use remained significant (HR 0.35, 0.20–0.60 95% CI and 0.47; 0.25–0.88, respectively). CONCLUSION: Lesion localisation at colonoscopy is incorrect in 18% of cases leading to potentially significant surgical management alterations. As part of accreditation, colonoscopists need lesion localisation training and awareness of when inaccuracies can occur. Springer US 2016-11-08 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5487844/ /pubmed/27826775 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5313-z Text en © The Author(s) 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Article Moug, Susan J. Fountas, Spyridon Johnstone, Mark S. Bryce, Adam S. Renwick, Andrew Chisholm, Lindsey J. McCarthy, Kathryn Hung, Amy Diament, Robert H. McGregor, John R. Khine, Myo Saldanha, James D. Khan, Khurram Mackay, Graham Leitch, E. Fiona McKee, Ruth F. Anderson, John H. Griffiths, Ben Horgan, Alan Lockwood, Sonia Bisset, Carly Molloy, Richard Vella, Mark Analysis of lesion localisation at colonoscopy: outcomes from a multi-centre U.K. study |
title | Analysis of lesion localisation at colonoscopy: outcomes from a multi-centre U.K. study |
title_full | Analysis of lesion localisation at colonoscopy: outcomes from a multi-centre U.K. study |
title_fullStr | Analysis of lesion localisation at colonoscopy: outcomes from a multi-centre U.K. study |
title_full_unstemmed | Analysis of lesion localisation at colonoscopy: outcomes from a multi-centre U.K. study |
title_short | Analysis of lesion localisation at colonoscopy: outcomes from a multi-centre U.K. study |
title_sort | analysis of lesion localisation at colonoscopy: outcomes from a multi-centre u.k. study |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5487844/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27826775 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-5313-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mougsusanj analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy AT fountasspyridon analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy AT johnstonemarks analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy AT bryceadams analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy AT renwickandrew analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy AT chisholmlindseyj analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy AT mccarthykathryn analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy AT hungamy analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy AT diamentroberth analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy AT mcgregorjohnr analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy AT khinemyo analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy AT saldanhajamesd analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy AT khankhurram analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy AT mackaygraham analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy AT leitchefiona analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy AT mckeeruthf analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy AT andersonjohnh analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy AT griffithsben analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy AT horganalan analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy AT lockwoodsonia analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy AT bissetcarly analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy AT molloyrichard analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy AT vellamark analysisoflesionlocalisationatcolonoscopyoutcomesfromamulticentreukstudy |